The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

Wolves endangering big game etc.

5K views 26 replies 14 participants last post by  Wonderbread 
#1 ·
I was watching Macmillan river adventure tonight on outdoor channel. It was about the Gray wolves that have made a big come back since they were put on the endanger species act that was signed in 1973. The wolves have been detrimental to the elk and the ecosystem. Big game forever group would like to have the states control the wildlife instead of the federal Government that is being fuel by the anti's, go to http://biggameforever.org/and sign the petition and watch the video on this website.it cost nothing to do, but you can become a member if you want.. thanks.. MRA is on tueday night at 11 pm. that is if you want to watch the show.
 
#2 ·
Elk were not detrimental to the ecosystem? High populations of elk changed the ecosystem. There are published studies on that.

Both elk and wolves need managed through hunting allocations. Haven't figured out how wolves have become detrimental to an ecosystem yet though.
 
#3 ·
Gotta love the treehuggers.They also brought us ethonal which raised the price of groceries and lower our fuel mileage.Now they bring us Al Gore light bulbs.

They much rather have wolves control the animal populations then hunting as a tool.Problem is they don't want hunting to control the wolves.They love the ideas of predators but disnmiss the idea of man in the equation.
 
#4 ·
Todd, the wolves have not harmed the eco system, but, anti-hunters see them as taking the place of hunters, and they have.

Everything needs balance, unless we want to completely exclude hunters.

One thing I have said for many years is that places like Yellowstone are not natural ecosystems, in the least. The reason? Because those systems have ELIMINATED hunting by man. Before it was a park, Yellowstone was hunted by native Americans, and they influenced not only game populations, but predator populations.
 
#5 ·
The antis wanted to introduce wolfs into Valley Forge National Park to control the deer.... Never mind the effect the wolfs would have on the Boy and Girl Scouts hiking there or the ederly couple out for a sunday stroll. Oh, and they (treehuggers) apparently had not considered that the wolf population would not understand that they were not permitted to leave the park to hunt. Gheeese!
 
#7 ·
rflktrman.
Any true conservationist would understand the value of wolves to the ecosystems, and the value of having a healthy wolf population period.

It is unfortunate that some are trying to make conservation into something it is not: a smokescreen for what is in reality an anti-conservation message or policy.

As for the wolves: Yellowstone is the most studied setting. A new study of the ecosystem was just released within the past couple of weeks. It can be found on the NPS Web site, or at least it was there a few days ago. The bottom line is that wolves significantly changed the ecosystem, and for the better.
 
#8 ·
I am wondering if anyone here really knows what is a ecosystem? How can you not call Yellowstone park not being an ecosystem? How can the wolves help the ecosystem when there are no hunting wolves? How can elk not be detrimental to the ecosystem, but high elk population changed the ecosystem.. definition of a ecosystem...http://forest.mtu.edu/kidscorner/ecosystems/definition.html
 
#9 ·
mossycamo said:
How can you not call Yellowstone park not being an ecosystem?
Just verifying what you are asking. Your question is "How can you call Y-stone an ecosystem?" With the double negatives this is what I am reading.

Anything is an ecosystem. It's one of those words that gets thrown around pretty loosely. New York City is an ecosystem. Now, there are healthy ecosystems and not so healthy ecosystems. It all depends on what the goals for that land are.

Is Yellowstone an ecosystem, sure. Just as is the state forest in WMU 2G, 5A and the rest of our backyards.
 
#11 ·
Dutch said:
Todd, the wolves have not harmed the eco system, but, anti-hunters see them as taking the place of hunters, and they have.

Everything needs balance, unless we want to completely exclude hunters.

One thing I have said for many years is that places like Yellowstone are not natural ecosystems, in the least. The reason? Because those systems have ELIMINATED hunting by man. Before it was a park, Yellowstone was hunted by native Americans, and they influenced not only game populations, but predator populations.
geesh,that's two posts in a row you get a
 
#12 ·
Wolves, Elk and Bison affect the ecosytem just like Sheep and Cattle do, one way or the other. It all depends what the parts of that ecosystem can benefit or be a detriment to the man doing the defining.

I am all for the re-introduction of the American Indian into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Probably would cut down on the number of visitor days though.
 
#15 ·
BILLINGS, Mont. — An acclaimed elk herd in Yellowstone National Park took a major hit last year, with biologists saying almost one in four of the animals were lost, mainly to predators and hunters.

Park biologist Smith said the long-term decline was indisputable, with 70 percent of the herd gone since wolves were reintroduced to the park from Canada in 1995.

Harvest limits for reproducing female elk were down to just a few dozen north of the park this year, versus almost 3,000 a season at their peak.

Yet in the 1990s, several thousand elk were killed in some years. Hoppe believes the herd's best days are gone, and a local hunting industry that already was ailing will collapse.
 
#17 ·
Same "Smith"

<a href="http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/yellowstone_national_park/article_4bbbf114-2554-11e1-b1ba-001871e3ce6c.html" target="_blank">Since elk have co-existed with wolves, their population has decreased, Smith said. And yes, wolves have played a role in that — but they are only one factor.

“Everybody thinks that everything that happened after wolves (were reintroduced) happened because of them,” Smith said.

In reality, a combination of wolves, human management and climate changes, such as a 10-year drought and last year’s harsh winter, have led to today’s reduced number of elk. Also, Yellowstone is now home to more predators than there have been in 100 years — including species like cougars and bears.

Fewer elk doesn’t have to be a bad thing, Smith said. The environment is now more balanced. Woody vegetation is growing better, which has resulted in more beavers and songbirds.</a>
 
#18 ·
I agree that those herds need controlled. I believe that man, did SOME controlling of the Yellowstone Elk herd because when the migrated out of the park, hunters killed a few.

Now, the extremists want them ONLY controlled by predators, which is not 100% natural or historical. Those herds in Yellowstone were, before 1876, controlled by BOTH man and predators, with man also helping to control the predators.

To EXCLUDE man from an ecosystem and to allow uncontrolled predator populations to exist, is NOT natural.
 
#19 ·
Fewer elk doesn’t have to be a bad thing, Smith said. The environment is now more balanced. Woody vegetation is growing better, which has resulted in more beavers and songbirds.
No, it's NOT a bad thing. What IS bad is this thought process that wants to exclude man from any ecosystem where he previously had influence. That is not natural in any sense.

Ok, lets release cougars and wolves in PA in order to control the deer population. Eliminate all seasons on yotes, bobcats and bears as well, just so we can have a "natural" ecosystem.
 
#21 ·
Actually Brad, both the elk and wolves are impacted through hunting as both travel outside the park. An entire wolf pack that resided inside Ystone was taken out last year during the wolf hunt as they were outside the park. We all know how hunting on National Park land goes. We see it here with Gettysburg and Valley Forge. Think we will ever get a chance to hunt there, nope. No sense debating it. It is what it is.

We both agree animals need managed and when there is a huntable population, a hunting season established. I have no problem with that and, out west, it seems to be a minority position. All anyone ever hears about are the "save them all" or "kill them all" people.
 
#23 ·
RS said:


I far as I know there has been no documentation of wolves, cougars, or bears exterminating elk, bison, deer, moose or antelope, man does not have such a proven track record.
Whoa there. I generally agree with you on many things, this I do not.

No species, under modern game management, has been shot to extinction. We should pride ourselves that most game has thrived under modern management, as well as non game species, and the past is not indicative of the present or future.
 
#24 ·
As long as we let the professional managers manage it, but I read threads daily of the ineptness of their endeavors. I do not recall any stories of the Native Americans exterminating the wolf, cougar, near extinction of the bison, woodland elk, or the passenger pigeon, and yes we are along way away from those days, but the fact remains it was man that carried out those deeds, and those excesses still reside in some.
 
#25 ·
If native Americans would have had Sharps rifles prior to the white man moving west, there would have been a lot less game in the west and a lot more native Americans. It was only because of the lack of more proficient weapons that the Native Americans didn't take more game. Remember, they ran herds of buffalo over the edge of cliffs in large numbers.
 
#26 ·
The fact is that the anti's are in favor of more wolves and don't want the population to be hunted.
I am in favor of a small controlled population.
Why would any hunter agree with anything the anti's want, wouldn't that be like cutting your own throat!
Wake up folks, these people have an agenda and it isn't to increase hunting oppurtunities!
 
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top